September 16, 2014

Advertise with Stand Firm

March 14, 2013


Eerie Parallels

It is now virtually a cliché to write: “As California goes, so goes the nation.”

We all know that California is also the outpost of extreme progressivism (pace, Mayor Bloomberg), which seeks to protect you from (1) cigarette smoking—even if conducted outdoors; (2) foie gras of any kind, since it can be made only by “torturing” geese; (3) plastic shopping bags; and (4) numerous other shibboleths too idiotic to relate in any detail.

Should it come as any surprise, therefore, that San Francisco (if California leads the nation, then San Francisco leads California) now wants to ban the actual words of militant Hamas jihadists from being reproduced in public, on the ground that the act of reproduction (and not the words themselves) constitutes a form of “hate speech” against Islam? Rather than admit that the words are hate speech against Jews and Israel?

No? It’s no surprise? Well, I thought so—apparently California now lacks the ability to surprise any of us. So are the nannies firmly ensconced in our political arena.

However, now comes proof as well that the speech-nannies are in full charge also of our Episcopal Church (USA). The proof is in the form of the gloriously mis-monikered “Accord” published by ECUSA late last Friday—after the main news cycle—and thus guaranteed to escape the notice of most Episcopalians. (It was also announced on the eve of the spring meeting of the House of Bishops, where the episcopal complainants were face-to-face with the four diocesan bishops who signed the Accord.)

The Accord has been the subject of many comments on blogs, and of one piece by the Anglican Communion Institute, but to my knowledge no one has thus far looked at its implications. Its long gestation period (the settlement of the Title IV charges against the nine bishops was announced in early January) bespeaks a protracted negotiation over its details—or perhaps over just who would agree to sign it.

Eventually, of course, all nine bishops who were charged signed it. One of the five retired bishops explained that they agreed to sign in order to allow the charges to be dropped against the four diocesan  bishops, who had a lot more to lose. None of the clergy (affiliated with the ACI) either participated in the conciliation (which was solely at the episcopal level), or entered into any accord—the ACI reports that disciplinary proceedings are still pending against two of their number.

The Accord is remarkably one-sided, both in tone and substance (“derisive and hostile”, as one of the signers put it). As the outcome of a thoroughly flawed and conflict-riven disciplinary process, one could not have expected anything else. It will long remain a mystery why the accused did not turn the tables on their accusers, and complain that their conduct—in filing disciplinary charges against witnesses who testified against them in court —was itself unethical, improper and “conduct unbecoming members of the clergy.”

Indeed, both the charges and the process were nothing less than overt intimidation of witnesses, and an attempt to interfere with the integrity of the judicial process. It yet remains to be seen whether the courts in question (the Texas Supreme Court and the trial court in Quincy) will be advised of what has occurred, in order that they may take proper disciplinary measures against the accusers—who sought by bringing the charges to gain an unfair advantage in their respective civil proceedings.

It also will remain a mystery why the accused bishops did not challenge for cause the three-person reference panel who decided that the charges would go forward. Each of those members was hopelessly conflicted, as I explained in this post, and should have had nothing whatsoever to do with the process. Their very refusal to recuse themselves should itself be the subject of disciplinary charges.

So we now have a Church-sanctioned, official policy of witness intimidation in any civil case to which ECUSA is a party. The precedent has been established; the double standard announced. The nannies in charge will see to it that any speech directed against their official party line will be treated as hate speech, and render the speaker subject to Title IV discipline. But bishops who testify outside their dioceses in support of the party line—such as the Presiding Bishop herself, who signed an amicus brief in the Dixon v. Edwards case when she was the diocesan of Nevada, and those bishops who recently signed a brief in the gay marriage case before the Supreme Court—will suffer no prosecution whatsoever, because they are running the kangaroo court.

It comes, I say, as no surprise. This is what the left always does: employs a double standard, protects its own at all costs and shows no mercy to opponents. Alinsky rules (and does he ever!), as anyone who is not blind may see.

San Francisco has nothing on the Episcopal Church (USA)—the nanny Church that welcomes you! (If you’re on the right side, that is. All others—just shut up and keep your heads low.)

What a despicable state of affairs. The Roman Catholic Church has a marvelously spiritual new leader, while ECUSA’s leader is mired in spite and revenge. While no church is completely perfect, ours is such a contrast in desultory decrepitude as to make one ashamed.


Share this story:


Recent Related Posts

Comments

Facebook comments are closed.

5 comments

All others—just shut up and keep your heads low.

...and keep writing those checks!!!

[1] Posted by GillianC on 3-14-2013 at 11:15 AM · [top]

Any way that TEC could be slapped (pun intended) with an anti-SLAPP lawsuit over this or does canon law trump all?

[2] Posted by Daniel on 3-14-2013 at 12:36 PM · [top]

Respondents agree not to file or endorse any further amicus brief or affidavit in litigation outside of their respective dioceses and against the legal position of The Episcopal Church until the General Convention formally addresses this conduct, either by amendment to the Constitution and/or canons or by formal resolution and to act in accordance with the action of the General Convention

Hypothetically, if TEC were to embezzle money from these dioceses or from the clergy pension fund, would these bishops be banned from making a claim in court?

[3] Posted by Jill Woodliff on 3-14-2013 at 01:58 PM · [top]

California also wants to prevent any persons from receiving therapy that will assist them to come out of the deadly homo-bi-etc. lifestyles which are growing more deadly every year according to the CDC and other studies:
http://www.pewsitter.com/view_news_id_125129.php
http://daleoleary.wordpress.com/2012/11/30/the-syndemic-of-stds-among-gay-men/
http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/2013/02/19/hiv-among-israeli-gay-men-up-55-since-2005/

As for Islam: There have been 20,500 deadly jihad attacks since 9/11/01.  Christians are being murdered, their homes and churches burned all across the hellish Arab Spring nations.

And a growing number of studies show gay marriage and gay adoption are indeed harmful to children.
http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/2013/02/17/new-study-on-homosexual-parents-tops-all-previous-research-3/


Looks like protecting the cults and culture of death are California’s first priority.

[4] Posted by St. Nikao on 3-14-2013 at 03:44 PM · [top]

The last I knew, this country is NOT a theocracy, and those nine bishops’ First Amendment rights were trampled on by TEC.  Is there some loophole in federal law extra the First Amendment by which TEC, and by extension, KJS, can be prosecuted for this blatant disregard for their rights, or is this just going to be swept under the rug?

[5] Posted by cennydd13 on 3-16-2013 at 11:21 PM · [top]

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.

Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more explanation, and the posts here, here, and here for advice on becoming a valued commenter as opposed to an ex-commenter. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments which you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm site administrators or Gri5th Media, LLC.